Figure 1
Community of inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 2001).
Table 1
Data Collection Tools
| Data Collection Tools | Used for |
|---|---|
| CoI Questionnaire | Identifying perceived CoI constructs and relations among them (teaching, social and cognitive presences) |
| Messages in Video Records | Determining and explaining relations between perceived cognitive presence and academic achievements |
| Final Test |
Table 2
Descriptive measures of teaching presence scores
| Categories | Items | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design and organization | The instructor, | ||
| clearly communicated important course goals. | 3.44 | 1.29 | |
| clearly communicated important course topics. | 3.56 | 1.24 | |
| provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities. | 3.51 | 1.07 | |
| clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities. | 3.89 | 1.05 | |
| Facilitation | was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn. | 3.67 | 0.99 |
| was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me to clarify my thinking. | 3.9 | 0.99 | |
| helped me to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue. | 4.03 | 0.94 | |
| helped me keep the course participants on task in a way that helped them to learn. | 3.85 | 1 | |
| encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course. | 3.95 | 1 | |
| Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants. | 4.03 | 0.96 | |
| Direct instruction | helped me to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn. | 3.92 | 0.91 |
| provided feedback that helped me to understand my strengths and weaknesses relative to the course’ goals and objectives. | 3.36 | 0.92 | |
| provided feedback in a timely fashion. | 3.85 | 1.04 |
Table 3
Descriptive measures of social presence scores
| Categories | Items | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affective expression | Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course. | 3.01 | 1.06 |
| I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants. | 3.82 | 0.95 | |
| Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction. | 2.93 | 0.95 | |
| Open communication | I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium. | 3.62 | 1 |
| I felt comfortable participating in course discussions. | 3.86 | 1.04 | |
| I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants. | 2.92 | 1 | |
| Group cohesion | I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust. | 3.78 | 0.91 |
| I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants. | 2.76 | 0.83 | |
| Online discussion helped me to develop a sense of collaboration. | 2.78 | 0.96 |
Table 4
Descriptive measures of cognitive presence scores
| Categories | Items | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triggering event | Problems posed increased my interest in course issues. | 3.27 | 1.04 |
| Course activities piqued my curiosity. | 3.18 | 0.89 | |
| I felt motivated to explore content related questions. | 3.19 | 0.98 | |
| Exploration | I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course. | 3.34 | 1.04 |
| Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me to resolve content related questions. | 3.32 | 1.1 | |
| Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives. | 3.45 | 0.94 | |
| Integration | Combining new information helped answer questions raised in course activities. | 3.26 | 1.01 |
| Learning activities helped me to construct explanations/solutions. | 3.08 | 1.08 | |
| Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class. | 3.18 | 1.06 | |
| Resolution | I can describe ways to test and apply knowledge created in this course. | 3.19 | 1.01 |
Table 5
Relationships between presence measures and final exam scores
Figure 2
Mean scores of teaching, social and cognitive presences.
Table 6
Comparison of presence measures between low, average and high achievement groups
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teaching Presence | Between Groups | .688 | 2 | .344 | .641 | .530 |
| Within Groups | 37.597 | 70 | .537 | |||
| Total | 38.285 | 72 | ||||
| Social Presence | Between Groups | 1.015 | 2 | .507 | 1.292 | .281 |
| Within Groups | 27.486 | 70 | .393 | |||
| Total | 28.501 | 72 | ||||
| Cognitive Presence | Between Groups | 9.481 | 2 | 4.741 | 23.733 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 13.982 | 70 | .200 | |||
| Total | 23.463 | 72 |